Feb 5, 2007 4:03:20 PM
Feb 5, 2007 4:52:45 PM
Quote:
STRADALE said:
>>Our F430's braking performance was even better than the Lambo's - 151 feet from 70 mph, 11 feet better than the result posted by the "Lords of Envy" coupe. This is as it should be, considering the optional $15,364 carbon-ceramic brake package.<<
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:
>>Our F430's braking performance was even better than the Lambo's - 151 feet from 70 mph, 11 feet better than the result posted by the "Lords of Envy" coupe. This is as it should be, considering the optional $15,364 carbon-ceramic brake package.<<
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
I know this has been posted before, but there is likely to be no difference in stopping distances between ceramic and conventional brakes. Iron brakes have enough braking power to invoke abs, so the only difference will be in tires and test conditions. Now if you're talking feel and fade resistance, for sure the ceramics are superior, but for one all-out stop from 80 or whatever, where fade is not an issue, all other things being equal the iron brakes stop just as quickly.
Gary
Quote:
STRADALE said:Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:
>>Our F430's braking performance was even better than the Lambo's - 151 feet from 70 mph, 11 feet better than the result posted by the "Lords of Envy" coupe. This is as it should be, considering the optional $15,364 carbon-ceramic brake package.<<
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
I know this has been posted before, but there is likely to be no difference in stopping distances between ceramic and conventional brakes. Iron brakes have enough braking power to invoke abs, so the only difference will be in tires and test conditions. Now if you're talking feel and fade resistance, for sure the ceramics are superior, but for one all-out stop from 80 or whatever, where fade is not an issue, all other things being equal the iron brakes stop just as quickly.
Gary
I know, you're right it's been posted before numerous times & I keep hearing it posted based on people's guesses/opinions/what they want to be true I guess? - 'iron brakes stop the same distance as ceramics' but have seen at least three different measured tests where ceramics stop in less distance than iron. Granted they haven't been real tests of each braking system on the same car/conditions but each one seems to be the same result - ceramics stop in less distance than iron/steel. But if anything the spider should take longer to stop because of a slightly greater weight than the coupe, not the other way around but it's definitely not conclusive because of all the other factors that may have effected the results including the biggest one; the condition of the brakes on the test car.
I am however beginning to think the opinion where people keep posting ' iron stops the same distance as ceramics' may just be another message board myth like the 'ceramics costs a lot more money to maintain then steel/iron.' where the exact opposite is the actual truth.
Quote:
VGA18 said:
I think F430 spider is slightly better than Gallardo spider , i did not like the Gallardo too much under a spider design
For coupe i'd go for Gallardo over F430 anyday, anywhere.But i have to mention that Spider is much better looking on F430 chassis(except red color )
Quote:
DavidSF said:
Car & Driver is a terrible car magazine. Take a read at the September issue of EVO and their comparison of these two cars. The Gallardo beats the F430. The main difference being styling, which I wholeheartedly agree. They call the F430 vulgar looking. I agree 100%. The F430 Spyder has to be the worst looking car that costs over $100k. Front nose is hideous. Roll hoops on a $200k convertible?!?!?!?
David
Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:
>>Our F430's braking performance was even better than the Lambo's - 151 feet from 70 mph, 11 feet better than the result posted by the "Lords of Envy" coupe. This is as it should be, considering the optional $15,364 carbon-ceramic brake package.<<
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
I know this has been posted before, but there is likely to be no difference in stopping distances between ceramic and conventional brakes. Iron brakes have enough braking power to invoke abs, so the only difference will be in tires and test conditions. Now if you're talking feel and fade resistance, for sure the ceramics are superior, but for one all-out stop from 80 or whatever, where fade is not an issue, all other things being equal the iron brakes stop just as quickly.
Gary
I know, you're right it's been posted before numerous times & I keep hearing it posted based on people's guesses/opinions/what they want to be true I guess? - 'iron brakes stop the same distance as ceramics' but have seen at least three different measured tests where ceramics stop in less distance than iron. Granted they haven't been real tests of each braking system on the same car/conditions but each one seems to be the same result - ceramics stop in less distance than iron/steel. But if anything the spider should take longer to stop because of a slightly greater weight than the coupe, not the other way around but it's definitely not conclusive because of all the other factors that may have effected the results including the biggest one; the condition of the brakes on the test car.
I am however beginning to think the opinion where people keep posting ' iron stops the same distance as ceramics' may just be another message board myth like the 'ceramics costs a lot more money to maintain then steel/iron.' where the exact opposite is the actual truth.
I know what you mean, and I'm not claiming to have tested ceramic and iron brake cars back to back. But basic physics, if you grant the fact that iron brakes can apply enough braking force to lock tires (or engage abs), tells me the two cars should be identical, all other factors being equal (tires being the big variable). Where am I going wrong with that theory? I just need someone to tell me where my logic error is.
And as to maintenance costs, as long as you never have to replace anything on the ceramics they are great, but I know of several posters on FChat who have bought pads, and holy batman, they are expensive! I pay $230 for both axles on my 430, and they last 6 to 8 track days plus street miles of course. Never replaced rotors at this point, but they are not too expensive either, whereas the ceramic rotors...well, to me it's a lot of money...
Gary
Quote:
Rossi said:Quote:
VGA18 said:
I think F430 spider is slightly better than Gallardo spider , i did not like the Gallardo too much under a spider design
For coupe i'd go for Gallardo over F430 anyday, anywhere.But i have to mention that Spider is much better looking on F430 chassis(except red color )
That is funny: I think the Gallardo really shines as a Spyder, give me the choice and I would choose a Spyder over a Spider any time, whereas I prefer the F430 as a Berlinetta.
Quote:
DavidSF said:
Car & Driver is a terrible car magazine. Take a read at the September issue of EVO and their comparison of these two cars. The Gallardo beats the F430. The main difference being styling, which I wholeheartedly agree. They call the F430 vulgar looking. I agree 100%. The F430 Spyder has to be the worst looking car that costs over $100k. Front nose is hideous. Roll hoops on a $200k convertible?!?!?!?
David
Quote:
STRADALE said:
I really can't tell you wehere you are wrong because I'm not sure I get your theory.
If you've replaced the pads then you probably should have replaced the rotors, at minimum upon the second pad change, that's where the ceramics are much different, no rotor change w/ every pad/every other pad change necessary like w/ steel. Matter of fact the same ceramic rotors last 100's of k of miles hence the difference in brake maintance costs. If you replace pads 10 times on steel brakes you're buying 5-10 sets of rotors vs. 0 for the ceramics. On a Porsche turbo the ceramics cost even less because the difference in the pad price of the 6 piston calipers steel vs. 6 piston caliper ceramics. Maintance cost for the ceramics are much less over time than steel. For the steel you save money up front but end up taking it in the rear..lol! You know what I mean, in the end.
Quote:
STRADALE said:
Maintance cost for the ceramics are much less over time than steel.
Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:
Maintance cost for the ceramics are much less over time than steel.
I had to address this in another post...I don't think this is true, even for long ownership periods, but if it is, you would have to log several hundred thousand miles to reach the break-even point. No, sorry, that doesn't fly, not with the $16000 cost of the option, and the parts being 10 to 20 times as expensive. The only thing ceramics have going for them is looks and brake feel (assuming a pad change to more aggressive pads on the irons brakes).
Gary
Feb 8, 2007 2:48:43 PM
Feb 8, 2007 2:54:06 PM
Quote:
Avantgarde said:Quote:
Gary(SF) said:
The only thing ceramics have going for them is looks and brake feel.
Gary
And also the fact that Ceramic brakes equipped cars do not require regular washes to rid the unsightly brake dust off the wheels ever so often
Feb 8, 2007 4:05:03 PM
Quote:
Avantgarde said:Quote:
Gary(SF) said:
The only thing ceramics have going for them is looks and brake feel.
Gary
And also the fact that Ceramic brakes equipped cars do not require regular washes to rid the unsightly brake dust off the wheels ever so often
Feb 8, 2007 9:39:55 PM
Quote:
bostonmini said:
...Does the value of the CCM brakes make a resale difference, do ppl care in general?
Feb 8, 2007 10:05:57 PM
Quote:
STRADALE said:Quote:
DavidSF said:
Car & Driver is a terrible car magazine. Take a read at the September issue of EVO and their comparison of these two cars. The Gallardo beats the F430. The main difference being styling, which I wholeheartedly agree. They call the F430 vulgar looking. I agree 100%. The F430 Spyder has to be the worst looking car that costs over $100k. Front nose is hideous. Roll hoops on a $200k convertible?!?!?!?
David
I love the "roll hoops". Especially cool looking in a 430 Spider w/ racing seats where the hoops follow the contours of the top of the seat.
Guess when it comes to styling it's completely subjective. What one person might love another thinks is horrible. Honestly I like the way both cars look, the Gallardo & the 430. But if you put a Ferrari Spider next to a Gallardo Spyder and told me to pick one to drive away, I wouldn't hesitate, I'd hop in the Ferrari not just because it's a better performer and more fun to drive (most everyone agrees on this part) but also because it's just so much better looking, even though I think the Gallardo Spyder looks better than the Gallardo coupe I still think the Ferrari Spider looks better than the Gallardo Spyder. And of course there's a much different feel of craftmenship to the Ferrari that the Lambo just doesn't even come close to matching especially in the interior and even in the engine compartment. The Ferrari will be timeless, already looks classic, the Gallardo already looks like........well...an 80's Lamborghini. I think the Gallardo is a cool looking ride but when looking at them head on the lambo looks smallish, doesn't have the same presence as the 430, hard to explain:
Quote:
STRADALE said:
If it's more important to you that you just own a Ferrari and not really caring about the go- stop- handling performance & looks than it's not important.